|
Anarchism 101 (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
firstly, you can't combine capitalism and socialism. socialism is the control of the means of production by the workers; what you're describing is merely a mixed economy. a mixed economy is not socialism, no matter how many americans like to use the term.
libertarians believe in the sanctity of private property above all else. a liberal libertarian is merely a liberal, perhaps even a fabian socialist. but there is no such thing as a liberal libertarian.
socialists are libertarians in a social sense, in that they believe in the right of the individual to be free of constraint, but they disagree vehemently about virtually everything political and economic.
calling oneself a socialist libertarian is just making up ideologies, i dont care what chomsky says. once you start watering down the libertarian ideology, it becomes liberalism or socialism, but there is no such thing as a liberal libertarian or a socialist libertarian. there are liberals and socialists ;) |
Well, socialism isn't control of the means of production by the workers, per se. It is control of the means of production by the PEOPLE, and the government respectfully, IS the people. So means of production is controlled by government. I never said a mixed economy is socialism, but I do believe that in a mixed economy, certain aspects of socialism and capitalism are merged into one system. How? Using the US economy as an example, public schools for one are controlled by the government. Social security for retirees is controlled by the government. Even the central bank, which centrally plans financial credit and semi-owned by the government, I would call socialist. But these socialist policies/programs coexist functionally with a relatively broad free market economy, with private schools, private insurance companies, and private banking institutions.
I most certainly believe in the John Locke economy. But I also believe in government control or regulation of some aspects of the economy to protect the consumer or people. So, if I were in charge, if Bear Sterns came to me and said, "If we don't get help from the government, we will go bankrupt, and cause a systemic collapse." I would tell them, "Ok, we'll help you, but you'll have to sell us the equity of your company for the amount of the help we give you." Why would I do this? To protect the people of America from the financial risks taken by a wealthy few.
So, I feel comfortable calling myself a libertarian socialist, or a leftist libertarian, left leaning libertarian, liberal libertarian, etc. Or I could satisfy you PKC, and just call myself a liberal!! |
|
|
| Clovis |
| Noam Chomsky is a ing genius. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Well, socialism isn't control of the means of production by the workers, per se. It is control of the means of production by the PEOPLE, and the government respectfully, IS the people. |
sorry, that's not true. you've kinda missed the point of socialism if that's what you think. what i said originally is true.
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
So means of production is controlled by government. I never said a mixed economy is socialism, but I do believe that in a mixed economy, certain aspects of socialism and capitalism are merged into one system. How? Using the US economy as an example, public schools for one are controlled by the government. Social security for retirees is controlled by the government. Even the central bank, which centrally plans financial credit and semi-owned by the government, I would call socialist. But these socialist policies/programs coexist functionally with a relatively broad free market economy, with private schools, private insurance companies, and private banking institutions. |
that's not socialism. that is liberalism.
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
I most certainly believe in the John Locke economy. But I also believe in government control or regulation of some aspects of the economy to protect the consumer or people. So, if I were in charge, if Bear Sterns came to me and said, "If we don't get help from the government, we will go bankrupt, and cause a systemic collapse." I would tell them, "Ok, we'll help you, but you'll have to sell us the equity of your company for the amount of the help we give you." Why would I do this? To protect the people of America from the financial risks taken by a wealthy few.
So, I feel comfortable calling myself a libertarian socialist, or a leftist libertarian, left leaning libertarian, liberal libertarian, etc. Or I could satisfy you PKC, and just call myself a liberal!! |
its not just me- its any other person that has a degree in political theory :p you're a liberal. a liberal that believes in a mixed economy and inalienable rights of the individual. so ner :p |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Clovis
Noam Chomsky is a ing genius. |
he's still wrong about an awful lot though ;) |
|
|
| Clovis |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
he's still wrong about an awful lot though ;) |
Not much actually. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
sorry, that's not true. you've kinda missed the point of socialism if that's what you think. what i said originally is true. |
I don't know any country classified as socialist where the workers actually have the power. In the Soviet Union, China, Syria, the power resides with the government. The government is the one who nationalizes. If it were really for the worker's, then I find it odd that socialist countries frown upon, and stifle, worker's unions and rights. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Clovis
Not much actually. |
oh come on. he lives in a fantasy land like the other socialists/anarchists/hippies. his analyses are excellent and interesting, but there's no practical component to anything he believes.
the philosophers have merely interpreted the world, the point is to change it. -karl marx. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
I don't know any country classified as socialist where the workers actually have the power. In the Soviet Union, China, Syria, the power resides with the government. The government is the one who nationalizes. If it were really for the worker's, then I find it odd that socialist countries frown upon, and stifle, worker's unions and rights. |
the systems in those countries are referred to as state capitalism. |
|
|
| Clovis |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
oh come on. he lives in a fantasy land like the other socialists/anarchists/hippies. his analyses are excellent and interesting, but there's no practical component to anything he believes.
the philosophers have merely interpreted the world, the point is to change it. -karl marx. |
He speaks truth on a number of issues that no one else touches.
His lectures on global American interests and foreign policy are pure gold. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Clovis
He speaks truth on a number of issues that no one else touches.
His lectures on global American interests and foreign policy are pure gold. |
oh absolutely. which is why he's always been one of my favourite (modern) theorists. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
the systems in those countries are referred to as state capitalism. |
Not in the sense of a socialist-leaning country. State capitalism is the intervening of the state on behalf of "big business" or large corporations. State capitalism is not the economic intervention of the state for purposes of protecting the people's interests. I would liken it to fascism in its most extreme form. On the complete opposite side of the political spectrum as socialism. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Not in the sense of a socialist-leaning country. State capitalism is the intervening of the state on behalf of "big business" or large corporations. State capitalism is not the economic intervention of the state for purposes of protecting the people's interests. I would liken it to fascism in its most extreme form. On the complete opposite side of the political spectrum as socialism. |
Im not sure where you're getting your information, but that's completely wrong. State capitalism is the operation of enterprise by the state. Meaning that they control and run everything, but do not include any form of local or worker control.
the USSR and china were not really socialist countries because they were autocratic and did not subscribe to the democratic principles of socialism. the usSr is a misnomer, akin to many of the dictatorship parties today that include "democratic" in their name. |
|
|
|
|
